Sentences For Crime

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31043, 26 April 1966, Page 16

Sentences For Crime

Sir, —Mi Greaves is enlightening but he does mt dispel the gloom encircling the ancient traditions of English law. “An eye for an eye” apparently still prevails. In the case of the nine youngsters, at the rate of eight years instead of a usual six months, this works out at 15 extra '‘eyes,” a distasteful way for English society to show the disgust alleged by Mr Greaves. He still may live to see the law. along with education, illuminated by television. Thirty years ago, as related with horror by a former Magistrate, Mr Mullins, in his autobiography, boys of 16, fined 5s and not naying, for playing football in South London streets, could be gaoled by the police merely asking him to sign a list. By forcing criminals to be reconciled to the evil of prisons, society reconciles itself to evil. Is that what Mr Greaves wants?—Yours, etc. A. B. CEDARIAN. April 22, 1966.

Sir, —A man was fined £5 for an “assault” on one of three children he found trespassing in his prizewinning garden. Apparently, the “assault” was not particularly grievous; perhaps no more than the miscreant deserved, and probably far less painful than some of us might have experienced years ago—when our perspicacious parents might well have remarked, “It serves you jolly well right.” Still, the law is the law, nd it would be nice to know just what legal limitations are imposed on the ordinary citizen in such circumstances. If the mere act of laying a hand on some young vandal caught in the act is liable to constitute an “assault,” we shall know where we stand; which will be a very long way from fulfilling our statutory obligation to co-operate with our grossly overworked police.— Yours, etc., ILAM. April 24, 1966.